Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:19 am
But morality is comparable to standard times.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:19 pm
So if morality is an existent, and facts describe existents, then the confusion is entirely yours.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:02 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:19 am
But morality is comparable to standard times.

But there isn't a standard set of moral principles. Theoretically they could be anything.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:20 pm Basically social collaboration can't happen unless people trust each other to behave in certain ways. Important persons who define and defined particular moral codes can demand obedience only to behaviours their people will find possible, so the rules cannot be just anything at all.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:40 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:20 pm Basically social collaboration can't happen unless people trust each other to behave in certain ways. Important persons who define and defined particular moral codes can demand obedience only to behaviours their people will find possible, so the rules cannot be just anything at all.

Perhaps not absolutely anything, but another culture could have a moral code that is acceptable to them, but would seem barbaric to us. It wasn't very long ago, in historic terms, that so called civilised Christian society thought slavery was morally acceptable. I you or I had lived in those times, we may well have thought so, too.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:40 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:20 pm Basically social collaboration can't happen unless people trust each other to behave in certain ways. Important persons who define and defined particular moral codes can demand obedience only to behaviours their people will find possible, so the rules cannot be just anything at all.

Perhaps not absolutely anything, but another culture could have a moral code that is acceptable to them, but would seem barbaric to us. It wasn't very long ago, in historic terms, that so called civilised Christian society thought slavery was morally acceptable. I you or I had lived in those times, we may well have thought so, too.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:11 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:40 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:20 pm Basically social collaboration can't happen unless people trust each other to behave in certain ways. Important persons who define and defined particular moral codes can demand obedience only to behaviours their people will find possible, so the rules cannot be just anything at all.

Perhaps not absolutely anything, but another culture could have a moral code that is acceptable to them, but would seem barbaric to us. It wasn't very long ago, in historic terms, that so called civilised Christian society thought slavery was morally acceptable. I you or I had lived in those times, we may well have thought so, too.

You don't seem to be very perceptive.
Did not notice the positive trend in the reduction in the state of chattel slavery since, say 10,000 years ago to the present where all sovereign nations has enacted laws to effect the illegality of chattel slavery and other forms of slavery.
The United Nations has issued the Declaration on the Abolishment of all forms of Slavery.

I am certain the earliest slaves would have wished they were never enslaved; it is inherent in each humans that he do not want to be enslaved voluntarily.
Since slavery is a moral issue, this is the inherent inherent moral fact of slavery of 'ought-not_ness to be enslaved represented by a neural algorithm; it is a mental state.
It is this inherent 'ought-not_ness to be enslaved' that is the subliminal impulse that is driving the trend of reduction of slaves since >10,000 years ago to the present and towards the future with the hope of ZERO slaves.

Where the above is processed within the Moral Framework and System, this moral fact generate the appropriate moral maxim, i.e.
"no human ought to be enslaved by another"
which is reducible to the non-moral fact of its specific neural algorithm.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:11 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:40 pm

Perhaps not absolutely anything, but another culture could have a moral code that is acceptable to them, but would seem barbaric to us. It wasn't very long ago, in historic terms, that so called civilised Christian society thought slavery was morally acceptable. I you or I had lived in those times, we may well have thought so, too.

You don't seem to be very perceptive.
Did not notice the positive trend in the reduction in the state of chattel slavery since, say 10,000 years ago to the present where all sovereign nations has enacted laws to effect the illegality of chattel slavery and other forms of slavery.
The United Nations has issued the Declaration on the Abolishment of all forms of Slavery.

I am certain the earliest slaves would have wished they were never enslaved; it is inherent in each humans that he do not want to be enslaved voluntarily.
Since slavery is a moral issue, this is the inherent inherent moral fact of slavery of 'ought-not_ness to be enslaved represented by a neural algorithm; it is a mental state.
It is this inherent 'ought-not_ness to be enslaved' that is the subliminal impulse that is driving the trend of reduction of slaves since >10,000 years ago to the present and towards the future with the hope of ZERO slaves.

Where the above is processed within the Moral Framework and System, this moral fact generate the appropriate moral maxim, i.e.
"no human ought to be enslaved by another"
which is reducible to the non-moral fact of its specific neural algorithm.

But, Veritas Aequitas, rules are not for the wellbeing of individuals but are for the wellbeing of the collective. Take for instance public hygiene the rules of which since covid have so much impinged on the comfort of individuals and which are aimed at the survival of the collective.The collective is necessary in some form for individuals to survive. If it were not then there would be no need for pesky rules and we'd all be happy libertarians.

On the other hand, the particular ethic of the Golden Rule is historical not biological.Why not look it up on Google and find out when the Golden Rule came to be established.Men don't evolve biologically, we evolve by way of cultural changes.
It is a little dangerous to rely on biological roots of moral principles. We need all our energies for protecting the best of our cultural inheritance.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:02 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:11 am
You don't seem to be very perceptive.
Did not notice the positive trend in the reduction in the state of chattel slavery since, say 10,000 years ago to the present where all sovereign nations has enacted laws to effect the illegality of chattel slavery and other forms of slavery.
The United Nations has issued the Declaration on the Abolishment of all forms of Slavery.

I am certain the earliest slaves would have wished they were never enslaved; it is inherent in each humans that he do not want to be enslaved voluntarily.
Since slavery is a moral issue, this is the inherent inherent moral fact of slavery of 'ought-not_ness to be enslaved represented by a neural algorithm; it is a mental state.
It is this inherent 'ought-not_ness to be enslaved' that is the subliminal impulse that is driving the trend of reduction of slaves since >10,000 years ago to the present and towards the future with the hope of ZERO slaves.

Where the above is processed within the Moral Framework and System, this moral fact generate the appropriate moral maxim, i.e.


"no human ought to be enslaved by another"
which is reducible to the non-moral fact of its specific neural algorithm.

But, Veritas Aequitas, rules are not for the wellbeing of individuals but are for the wellbeing of the collective. Take for instance public hygiene the rules of which since covid have so much impinged on the comfort of individuals and which are aimed at the survival of the collective.The collective is necessary in some form for individuals to survive. If it were not then there would be no need for pesky rules and we'd all be happy libertarians.

On the other hand, the particular ethic of the Golden Rule is historical not biological.Why not look it up on Google and find out when the Golden Rule came to be established.Men don't evolve biologically, we evolve by way of cultural changes.
It is a little dangerous to rely on biological roots of moral principles. We need all our energies for protecting the best of our cultural inheritance.

My focus is on morality and not on moral rules.
Morality is confined primarily to the individual and secondary to the collective.
The individuals must each and first be morally competent spontaneously which will then effect the results of the collective via spontaneous co-operation by the individuals.

All humans are endowed with a moral function in the brain but it is not very active in the majority whilst awaiting its potential to unfold in the future.

When the individuals are morally competent there is no need for moral rules to guide them, all their acts will be spontaneously moral without any second thoughts.
At our present stage, I agree there is a need for moral rules to guide moral agents but not to enforce them upon the individuals.

If you dig much deeper, you will find the Golden Rule has a biological root,
Biology’s Golden Rule
https://orbitermag.com/biologys-golden-rule/

Even Reason and Logic has its root in Biology;
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

My focus is on morality and not on moral rules.
Morality is confined primarily to the individual and secondary to the collective.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:11 am
You don't seem to be very perceptive.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:22 pm If there was only one individual there would be no morality.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:11 am
You don't seem to be very perceptive.

I'm perceptive enough to be able to see that talking to you is a waste of time.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:24 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:22 pm If there was only one individual there would be no morality.

Morality emerged from humanity.
If there is only one individual, there is no humanity.
If there is no humanity, there is no morality.

But the leverage of morality is grounded on the individual[s]- note each of the individual[s] not the existence of only one individual.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:24 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:22 pm If there was only one individual there would be no morality.

Morality emerged from humanity.
If there is only one individual, there is no humanity.
If there is no humanity, there is no morality.

But the leverage of morality is grounded on the individual[s]- note each of the individual[s] not the existence of only one individual.

Morality is people getting on as collectives. Humans live in families as the very smallest collective unit. Mammals' need to live collectively is genetic, not individual.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:20 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:24 am
Morality emerged from humanity.
If there is only one individual, there is no humanity.
If there is no humanity, there is no morality.

But the leverage of morality is grounded on the individual[s]- note each of the individual[s] not the existence of only one individual.

Morality is people getting on as collectives. Humans live in families as the very smallest collective unit. Mammals' need to live collectively is genetic, not individual.

You missed my point.

I agree the collective is important.

Note in the case of team-building, say a basketball team.
The first and most important criteria for an effective team is the individual team members must be skillful in their respective role and at the same time a good team-player.
It is say the strength of any team is equivalent to the strength of its weakest member - analogy with the strength of a chain is the strength of its weakest link.
So the focus must be on the individual members first than the whole team.

It is the same with team-humanity in respect of morality.
What is critical is the self-development of the individuals' moral competence so that the overall moral state of humanity or specific groups are morally efficient.

Another point is, even if there is only one human left on Earth, as a human being she has an inherent moral function and thus naturally driven to act morally, e.g. not to commit suicide. If she is basically morally competent he will do it but live till the inevitable.
Perhaps she could get access to a sperm bank and impregnate herself to start a family.